[Official] Dimensional Shield | Phase Shield

[omegareaper7]

I've said this in chat before: Dime shield is only really strong in limited card pool environments like all the events. However, outside of a limited card pool, its a minor annoyance at worst. To many commonly played decks have several ways around and walk all over mono aether.

[jawdirk]

I've said this in chat before: Dime shield is only really strong in limited card pool environments like all the events. However, outside of a limited card pool, its a minor annoyance at worst. To many commonly played decks have several ways around and walk all over mono aether.

I agree completely. There is no shortage of decks that can beat mono aether. My problem with it is that there are an overwhelmingly larger number of fun, interesting, otherwise competitive decks, that can't beat mono aether, mostly because they don't have a way to deal enough damage. They can deal enough damage through other shields, even ice shield; at least they have a chance. So if you want to be competitive, and rush or mess around with creature control, you'd better play some element that has PC or your deck better be optimized vs. mono aether. Because mono aether is stupid, but it is so reliable and potent that it is like a baseline.

Your deck must be at least 50-50 against mono aether or it is no good.

All I'm saying, is lower that baseline a little bit. Let some actually fun decks that involve playing cards against the enemy or creating some kind of actual strategy compete against it. Does anyone actually think that mono-  rush would be OP if we nerfed dim shield by a couple of quanta?

[omegareaper7]

I would like to point out that i don't consider it overpowered. Just strong against some decks.

[OldTrees]

I've said this in chat before: Dime shield is only really strong in limited card pool environments like all the events. However, outside of a limited card pool, its a minor annoyance at worst. To many commonly played decks have several ways around and walk all over mono aether.

I agree completely. There is no shortage of decks that can beat mono aether. My problem with it is that there are an overwhelmingly larger number of fun, interesting, otherwise competitive decks, that can't beat mono aether, mostly because they don't have a way to deal enough damage. They can deal enough damage through other shields, even ice shield; at least they have a chance. So if you want to be competitive, and rush or mess around with creature control, you'd better play some element that has PC or your deck better be optimized vs. mono aether. Because mono aether is stupid, but it is so reliable and potent that it is like a baseline.

Your deck must be at least 50-50 against mono aether or it is no good.

All I'm saying, is lower that baseline a little bit. Let some actually fun decks that involve playing cards against the enemy or creating some kind of actual strategy compete against it. Does anyone actually think that mono-  rush would be OP if we nerfed dim shield by a couple of quanta?

I fail to see why Dim Shield is the problem in this example.
If  decks are the ones struggling in the meta because they do not have options against Dim Shield, then we should give them options.
If a subset of decks in their vanilla variation do not have options against a shield, I do not see that as a problem. Decks are permitted to accept counters in order to be stronger when they are not countered. Just as decks are permitted to eliminate counters in exchange for diluting their win condition.

[jawdirk]

I fail to see why Dim Shield is the problem in this example.
If  decks are the ones struggling in the meta because they do not have options against Dim Shield, then we should give them options.
If a subset of decks in their vanilla variation do not have options against a shield, I do not see that as a problem. Decks are permitted to accept counters in order to be stronger when they are not countered. Just as decks are permitted to eliminate counters in exchange for diluting their win condition.

I don't have any problem with all getting some way of dealing with dim shields. But many have argued that merely adding new forms of (soft) PC isn't a good solution because it would effectively nerf the other balanced shields as well.

We have a shield that shuts down all the major damage sources of 5 out of 12 elements (arguably more). Is that good for the game? So far I have not seen any argument for why dim shield needs to be in its current form. Is there some sort of deck that would become overpowered without the existence of dim shield? Is aether helpless without dim shield? To me, any card that eliminates vanilla creature damage if chained, better have a really good reason to exist, or a serious weakness that is easily defeated by nearly all the elements. Casting cost of 6|5 +1 card per 3 turns is not enough of a risk for such a powerful effect, when there are so few efficient ways to dispose of permanents (ignoring SoF). Yes, we all know how to make decks that defeat dim shield, but again, what about all the good, interesting decks that can't deal with dim shield? Why is having dim shield in the game better than having those decks in the game?

[Cheesy111]

I don't have any problem with  all getting some way of dealing with blue crawlers. But many have argued that merely adding new forms of CC isn't a good solution because it would effectively nerf the other balanced creatures as well.

So far I have not seen any argument for why blue crawler needs to be in its current form. Is there some sort of deck that would become overpowered without the existence of blue crawler? Is water helpless without blue crawler? To me, any vanilla creature better have a really good reason to exist, or a serious weakness that is easily defeated by nearly all the elements. Yes, we all know how to make decks that defeat blue crawler, but again, what about all the good, interesting decks that can't deal with blue crawler? Why is having blue crawler in the game better than having those decks in the game?

You have made a lot of statements, but I do not see any backing for most of them.  You could as easily say the same for blue crawler.  Currently you are asking us to provide proof of why dim shield should exist, instead of providing proof for why it shouldn't.  The closest things I could find as reasoning are:

"any card that eliminates vanilla creature damage if chained, better have a really good reason to exist" - Why? What is so important about eliminating vanilla creature damage for a costly investment that means that dim shield has to have a specific reason to exist?

"Why is having dim shield in the game better than having those decks in the game?" - Why is having those decks in the game better than having dim shield in the game?

I think that you would be better served arguing that Dim Shield's effect is too powerful for its cost than that it is incredibly different than all other decks and destroys deck diversity.

[OldTrees]

I fail to see why Dim Shield is the problem in this example.
If  decks are the ones struggling in the meta because they do not have options against Dim Shield, then we should give them options.
If a subset of decks in their vanilla variation do not have options against a shield, I do not see that as a problem. Decks are permitted to accept counters in order to be stronger when they are not countered. Just as decks are permitted to eliminate counters in exchange for diluting their win condition.

I don't have any problem with all getting some way of dealing with dim shields. But many have argued that merely adding new forms of (soft) PC isn't a good solution because it would effectively nerf the other balanced shields as well.

We have a shield that shuts down all the major damage sources of 5 out of 12 elements (arguably more). Is that good for the game? So far I have not seen any argument for why dim shield needs to be in its current form. Is there some sort of deck that would become overpowered without the existence of dim shield? Is aether helpless without dim shield? To me, any card that eliminates vanilla creature damage if chained, better have a really good reason to exist, or a serious weakness that is easily defeated by nearly all the elements. Casting cost of 6|5 +1 card per 3 turns is not enough of a risk for such a powerful effect, when there are so few efficient ways to dispose of permanents (ignoring SoF). Yes, we all know how to make decks that defeat dim shield, but again, what about all the good, interesting decks that can't deal with dim shield? Why is having dim shield in the game better than having those decks in the game?

1) Giving PC to elements that is on par with the existing PC does not buff PC. If PC were buffed then shields would be nerfed. I cannot conclude that giving PC to elements that is on par with existing PC would nerf shields. (Completion and Balance are separate axises)
2) Is the incompleteness of 5 elements good for the game? No. Can I conclude Dim Shield is the problem? No.
3) "Dim Shield or those decks" is a false dichotomy.

Summary:
I have made no claim about the balance/imbalance of Dim Shield.
Access to options is different then Strength of options. Changing one does not impact the other.

[jawdirk]

You have made a lot of statements, but I do not see any backing for most of them.  You could as easily say the same for blue crawler.

This thread is full of backing for my statements (my post is in a vast context). Please, I'd love to hear more about this dim shield : blue crawler analogy.

"any card that eliminates vanilla creature damage if chained, better have a really good reason to exist" - Why? What is so important about eliminating vanilla creature damage for a costly investment that means that dim shield has to have a specific reason to exist?

Because the vast, vast majority of creatures do vanilla creature damage. That means that when you play dim shield, you aren't just protecting yourself from the highly optimized rush damage, you are also protecting yourself from any typical creature that wasn't specifically selected for its ability to evade dim shield. Maybe it was a Maxwell's demon selected for its effectiveness against dragons. Maybe it was a mind flayer selected to protect against maxwell's demons. Maybe it was a firefly queen selected to generate . Vanilla creature damage is the default form of damage. You have to go out of your way to build a deck that doesn't do vanilla creature damage. Even scorpions do vanilla creature damage.

"Why is having dim shield in the game better than having those decks in the game?" - Why is having those decks in the game better than having dim shield in the game?

Because it is not "Dim Shield the Game," it is Elements the Game. Because I am very familiar with mono aether. Because I prefer thoughtful combos and synergies to X * 6.

I think that you would be better served arguing that Dim Shield's effect is too powerful for its cost than that it is incredibly different than all other decks and destroys deck diversity.

Many, many other people have argued that it is too powerful. I thought I might contribute to this thread by striking out in a different direction. To each his own.

[jawdirk]

1) Giving PC to elements that is on par with the existing PC does not buff PC. If PC were buffed then shields would be nerfed. I cannot conclude that giving PC to elements that is on par with existing PC would nerf shields. (Completion and Balance are separate axises)

You have to include in the analysis of a card's power the likelihood of a card being in the enemy's deck which effectively counters the card. I do think that if 5 elements gained explosion, that you would see more use of explosion, and thereby, the power of permanents would be reduced globally. So I disagree with your statement that completion and balance are separate axises (unless you have a degenerate situation where everyone is forced to play a limited set of elements). However, as I said before, I agree that adding PC, soft or otherwise, to more elements, would be a great thing for the game.

2) Is the incompleteness of 5 elements good for the game? No. Can I conclude Dim Shield is the problem? No.

It's not *the* problem, it is one of many problems. But don't forget that completeness can only be defined in terms of cards that can shut down your deck if it is not complete. For example, if all non-pillar permanents were shard of void, then PC would not be a component of completeness.

3) "Dim Shield or those decks" is a false dichotomy.

I claim there exist many decks that would be viable if dim shield was eliminated, but are not currently viable (and I add that many of them are interesting). I will define viable as having a win percentage of 50% or greater in the PvP meta minus SoF. Perhaps I am wrong about that. But even the existence of one such deck would make it not a false dichotomy. But the burden is on you to demonstrate that there are no such decks before you can make a claim of a false dichotomy. You may find fault with my claim, but you can't dismiss it entirely (yet).

[eaglgenes101]

We aren't asking for 5 more explosions. We are asking for a number of creative options for getting around shields such as soft PC, spell damage cards, etc.

Monos have a distinct advantage over other deck types: Consistency. When you build one, all you need to mind is how many pillars should be in the deck. If you're running a duo, you also have to think about the element split, and you get the problem of having pillars of one element and cards of the other in the hand. Trios have the duos' problem, only worse. And rainbows have to use random quanta towers, low-capacity novas, or combo-y SN's or immos.

[OldTrees]

@jawdirk
1)
The amount of PC used is in a negative feedback relationship with the threat level of permanents used. Decks that deviate significantly from this equilibrium (without substitution) end up being less effective because they are ignoring an existing threat to a significant degree. Changing which elements have access to PC would not alter the causes for this equilibrium. Thus I would suspect the equilibrium would remain stable since the influx of decks would conform to current norms for competitive decks.

Aka: Adding more forms of equivalent PC to the game does not imply the magnitude of the presence of PC in the metagame would shift.

Now why do I think PC and Permanents have a negative feedback relation? Control is valued proportionally to what it removes. The more Control in the meta the less the controlled card type is played. This weakens the control making it sub optimal relative to an alternative card. People that use the alternative card rather than the increased level of control will have higher win rates. This encourages a decrease in PC back to previous efficient levels.

Ex: (numbers are arbitrary)
Every fire deck spontaneously adds an extra Explosion. Every player notices the increase in PC and swaps a permanent for a creature. The reduction in valuable targets reduces the expected value of Explosion. A Fire player is wise, takes out the extra Explosion and swaps another Explosion for a CC card. Their deck is now more efficient in the resulting metagame than the decks with more PC. As more players catch on the amount of PC drops and the amount of CC rises. This causes players to switch the creature out for the permanent. This buffs Explosion and nerfs CC resulting the the Fire players returning to the original deck.

2)
Again you are making a large leap of intuition than I think it justified by the details you are providing. I cannot conclude that the Defense is the problem rather than the lack of CounterDefense/Evasion from these details. The available evidence is not sufficient to single out Dim Shield or Incompleteness as the problem.

3)
If the elements in question were more complete then those decks could be competitive in the metagame despite Dim Shield. Since the decks can coexist with Dim shield they are not mutually exclusive. Hence asking to choose between them is a false dichotomy.

[Jenkar]

"any card that eliminates vanilla creature damage if chained, better have a really good reason to exist" - Why? What is so important about eliminating vanilla creature damage for a costly investment that means that dim shield has to have a specific reason to exist?

Because the vast, vast majority of creatures do vanilla creature damage. That means that when you play dim shield, you aren't just protecting yourself from the highly optimized rush damage, you are also protecting yourself from any typical creature that wasn't specifically selected for its ability to evade dim shield. Maybe it was a Maxwell's demon selected for its effectiveness against dragons. Maybe it was a mind flayer selected to protect against maxwell's demons. Maybe it was a firefly queen selected to generate . Vanilla creature damage is the default form of damage. You have to go out of your way to build a deck that doesn't do vanilla creature damage. Even scorpions do vanilla creature damage.

The problem is that you are in the line of thought of thinking that winning with creatures killing the opponent should be the "standard" procedure. I disagree. Deckout and spell-damage based decks should, in my opinion, have a usage as widespread as "standard vanilla damage".